A random thought after watching Sister Wives...

[staceyobu]

So, I'm watching the latest season that is on Netflix.  There is an episode where another couple comes to visit that is part of their church.  The man doesn't particularly want to take on another wife, but he feels that he should because it is part of the church's teaching.  But, if every man in your church feels obligated to take on another wife as part of their religion, isn't there a surplus of men very quickly?

 

I've heard of young men getting kicked out of the FLDS cult that was located in Texas.  Would the Sister Wives cast ever admit to a similar issue?

[speedmom4]

So, I'm watching the latest season that is on Netflix. There is an episode where another couple comes to visit that is part of their church. The man doesn't particularly want to take on another wife, but he feels that he should because it is part of the church's teaching. But, if every man in your church feels obligated to take on another wife as part of their religion, isn't there a surplus of men very quickly?

 

I've heard of young men getting kicked out of the FLDS cult that was located in Texas. Would the Sister Wives cast ever admit to a similar issue?

I saw that episode and felt so sorry for that couple. They clearly were happy and would only take on another wife as a duty not out of mutual desire.

 

Elise in NC

[DawnM]

I cannot watch that show.  I just can't.  I tried.  It creeps me out.

 

I have read that in the early days of American Mormonism this teaching was something that many were expected to follow polygamy and take on more wives.  It wasn't until 1890 that the church decided to "obey the law of the land" and stop polygamy.  Most Mormons would probably argue that it had nothing to do with the law of the land and that God instituted a new revelation…..I am not going to argue that point, but the point is, it didn't stop until about 100 years ago.

 

I do wonder how the early Mormon church handled a surplus of women though.  It is a good question.

 

Dawn

[Butter]

Quite a lot of the early church members were not polygamists, actually (it was practiced by only 20-30% of the members apparently).  Many marriages were men taking on another wife who had had their husband die.  There was never an issue of leftover men with no wives to be had because the women were already taken.

 

The church the Browns belong to does not *require* polygamy, but it does seem encouraged.  Most members don't seem to have as many wives as Kody does.  Robyn's first marriage was to a member of their church, but monogamous with no intention of adding another wife (and ended for reasons not related to that apparently - they've never specified).  I suspect the couple in that episode likely weren't struggling with adding another wife at all, but the producers thought that "issue" would add more drama.  Reality shows are rarely actual reality.  I have friends I've known for years that did an episode for a preppers show and the producers had them do things and portray them as real when they weren't at all things they would normally do, but instead scripted by the producers to make it a better show.

[DawnM]

Do you have a link to those statistics?

 

I am trying to find more info.  

 

My info was from the History Channel as I am not that familiar with the Mormon history.

 

And then, being the novice that I am, I turned to the "for Dummies" link.

 

It does say here on the dummies link that there were far more women than men, so that would seem that an overage of men was not an issue.

 

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-polygamy-in-mormon-history.html

 

Quite a lot of the early church members were not polygamists, actually (it was practiced by only 20-30% of the members apparently).  Many marriages were men taking on another wife who had had their husband die.  There was never an issue of leftover men with no wives to be had because the women were already taken.

 

The church the Browns belong to does not *require* polygamy, but it does seem encouraged.  Most members don't seem to have as many wives as Kody does.  Robyn's first marriage was to a member of their church, but monogamous with no intention of adding another wife (and ended for reasons not related to that apparently - they've never specified).  I suspect the couple in that episode likely weren't struggling with adding another wife at all, but the producers thought that "issue" would add more drama.  Reality shows are rarely actual reality.  I have friends I've known for years that did an episode for a preppers show and the producers had them do things and portray them as real when they weren't at all things they would normally do, but instead scripted by the producers to make it a better show.

 

[Xuzi]

My family has been in the LDS church since almost the beginning, and the majority of my ancestors were in monogomous marriages, with a smattering of polygamists. It wasn't something "practiced" across the board. (believed in, most likely, but that didn't mean they all participated)

[Paige]

I don't watch the show, but why would anyone in the church care if someone only wants one wife? In churches that promote monogamy, people don't go around saying everyone has to have at least one spouse. If people want to be single, that's great. Don't the Sister Wives people have single adults in their groups? I'd have thought they'd be accepting of any number of wives. It's just wives, right? Or do the Sister Wives allow polyandry if that's what the family wants? I think I'm thinking too hard...

[wendy not in HI]

The LDS church put out a new statement recently (in December, I think) about polygamy.  I think polygamy is a bit of an embarrassing mystery even to Mormons.  I liked this article because it points out that we don't really understand the why of polygamy.  It does also talk a little about statistics - it states that at one point about half of all members of the LDS church were part of a polygamous family - husband, wife, or child.  Then later it was closer to 20-30%.

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

 

And here is a magazine article that talks about that official statement - giving some hows and whys.  If I were not a member of the LDS church, it would be a peek into how mormons today think about polygamy.

http://www.ldsliving.com/story/74595-how-the-churchs-new-article-on-polygamy-will-increase-lds-confidence

 

And just a quick note to remind readers that the family in Sister Wives are not LDS/Mormons.  

 

I've only seen one episode of Sister Wives, and I thought the family seemed happy, if a little wacky...

[MFG]

The Brown family are members of the Apostolic United Brethren, a Fundimentalist Morman group. Christine Brown is an Allred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_United_Brethren

Plural marriage is an important teaching in those groups.

[Kathryn]

I cannot watch that show. I just can't. I tried. It creeps me out.

 

I have read that in the early days of American Mormonism this teaching was something that many were expected to follow polygamy and take on more wives. It wasn't until 1890 that the church decided to "obey the law of the land" and stop polygamy. Most Mormons would probably argue that it had nothing to do with the law of the land and that God instituted a new revelation…..I am not going to argue that point, but the point is, it didn't stop until about 100 years ago.

 

I do wonder how the early Mormon church handled a surplus of women though. It is a good question.

 

Dawn

I did a research paper on the early days of the church when I was in college. Polygamy was far from universal, but it was definitely taught as the ideal. The "extra" women came from efforts at recruiting in Europe.

[Ravin]

It's safe to say they're Mormons (hold the Book of Mormon as a sacred scripture)  but they've always been clear they're not LDS.

 

As far as their church's attitudes, I think Kody's brother leaving the church is telling. He wasn't ostracized by his family for it, his choice was respected and family ties remain intact. The same can't be said for some of the more insular, cultish groups that get all the bad press for chucking out their young men and transferring wives like chattel, etc.

 

One of the things the Browns are trying to get across is that polygamy does not automatically mean all the cult-abuse stuff.

[DawnM]

I think the idea is to have more children.  Mormons/LDS believe that we all pre-existed and those who are still in the preexistent state need to be given a physical earthly body in order to eternally progress.

 

Please forgive me if this is not 100% accurate.  I have tried to understand and study Mormonism but I know there are gaps in what I understand.

 

http://www.mormonbeliefs.org/mormon_beliefs/mormon-beliefs-the-plan-of-salvation/the-plan-of-salvation-the-pre-existence

 

I don't watch the show, but why would anyone in the church care if someone only wants one wife? In churches that promote monogamy, people don't go around saying everyone has to have at least one spouse. If people want to be single, that's great. Don't the Sister Wives people have single adults in their groups? I'd have thought they'd be accepting of any number of wives. It's just wives, right? Or do the Sister Wives allow polyandry if that's what the family wants? I think I'm thinking too hard...

 

[maize]

A few years ago I read a book by an anthropologist who studied both the nineteenth century and modern polygamist groups in Utah. He profiled three different modern groups without naming them. One sounded very much like the FLDS, the other two seemed more mainstream (i.e., people dressed normally, lived normal lives, didn't form exclusive communities...)

 

One thing that struck me about the more mainstream churches is that most of the women profiled in the study were converts to the church. They were coming in from outside and choosing this religion and lifestyle. From my observation, it is fairly common in many churches and religions for women to join in larger numbers than men, and also more common for women raised in a religion to remain religiously active in that religion than men. I'm thinking of old churches I visited in Europe where it was rare to see a male worshipper, as well as my own experiences as an LDS missionary; if this is true for the church that the Sister Wives family belongs to there is not likely to be a problem of extra men hanging around unable to find wives. The modern LDS church actually faces the opposite problem in many areas, particularly those where the church has not been long established and the membership is relatively small; it is not at all uncommon for there to be many single women who would like to find a husband who shares their religious commitment but there are few such men available. Polygamy would likely eliminate that problem--in fact it did in the early days of the LDS church in Utah, almost all women were married. The book (sorry I can't remember the title) also mentioned that it was comparatively easy for a woman in 19th century Utah to get a divorce, and easy to remarry if she wanted to. I imagine this could have worked to the advantage of a woman who found herself in an abusive marriage--she could divorce her husband and, if she wanted, go marry the fellow down the street who treated all of his three wives well  :tongue_smilie:

[Excelsior! Academy]

 

 

One of the things the Browns are trying to get across is that polygamy does not automatically mean all the cult-abuse stuff.

 

This is the one thing I appreciate about their show.  It dispelled a stereotypical myth I held. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know a family that was going to be on a show about talents.  I can't remember the title.  They tried to encourage the siblings (a boy and a girl) to fake a sibling rivalry.  The whole "reality" show was scripted.

[Catwoman]

I can't watch that show. I tried a few times, but I can't get into it at all. I have no interest in the lifestyle and the characters don't seem to have a whole lot to recommend them. I just don't find them appealing.

 

I still can't believe that the husband was ever even able to get a date for himself, let alone a bunch of wives. Those must be some incredibly desperate women, because he's incredibly unattractive, entirely lacking in charm and personality, and he doesn't seem too bright. It boggles my mind that any woman would want anything to do with him.

 

I can sum it up with my favorite little emoticon dude: :ack2:

[La Condessa]

Another thing that added to the uneven numbers of men/women in the early LDS church was that a great many men had been murdered by the mobs at Han's Mill and the other areas where the Mormons were driven out, but their families were only driven away--leaving the early church with large numbers of widows and orphans to care for.

[Veritaserum]

I was born and raised LDS and I have polygamist pioneer ancestors on my father's side (my mother is a convert). I watch Sister Wives because polygamy both horrifies and fascinates me.

 

Learning about the origins of polygamy (also called the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage as canonized in LDS scripture) is one of the things that prevents me from being an active believer.

 

Joseph Smith started the practice. Many of his wives were already married to other (LDS) men. While some people explain these marriages as spiritual rather than actual (i.e. consummated) marriages, there are enough personal accounts from participants and witnesses claiming a sexual relationship that I believe that Joseph Smith had physical relationships with most, if not all, of his "wives." When Smith died, most of the women were married off to high-ranking leaders (Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball, commonly). I think this is where the oft-repeated explanation of polygamy for the sake of widows originated. What doesn't make any sense to me is that some of Joseph Smith's "widows" were still maried to their first husbands. The whole thing is messy and gross.

 

My great-grandfather's grandmother fell in love with her husband when he was on his way to Utah. She agreed to marry him and convert to LDS if he would promise to never, ever take another wife. He promised. She converted. They got married and moved to Utah. A few years later he had prosperous businesses. Brigham Young told him he should take another wife. He said he couldn't because he's promised not to. Young told him to ask his wife again. She said no and reminded him of the promise. He told Young no, but Young kept pressuring him until he agreed. Young married my ggg-grandfather to a second wife without my ggg-grandmother's knowledge or consent. Officially, the first wife is supposed to give permission. Joseph Smith did not practice it that way and neither did Brigham Young. Anyway, when ggg-grandma found out she was understandably heartbroken and devastated. She never got over it. Eventually she moved to Idaho because she could not bear the pain of witnessing her husband's infidelity on a daily basis. When he was dying, he sent her a letter begging her to come home. She did. They reached some sort of reconciliation. Then he died.

 

This is not an uncommon story. LDS polygamy is fraught with heartbreak and neglect. While some polygamous unions may have been healthy/stable and even happy, that does not appear to be the case for most.

 

Although polygamy is not practiced by the LDS the way it once was, it is still official doctrine and a man can be married in the LDS temple to more than one woman. For example, if a man marries a wife in the temple ("for time and all eternity"--on earth and forever in the afterlife), he can also marry other wives in the temple if he divorces the first wife or if she dies. In the case of a divorce, the eternal marriage isn't canceled unless the woman is going to marry another husband in the temple. If she doesn't ever get married in the temple again, she will be eternally married to her (civilly divorced) ex-husband and he can eternally marry other women. This policy causes pain for many. I think it's a rare person who would enjoy the idea of being eternally bound to an ex-spouse--especially if the ex was abusive.

 

On the flip side, if a woman is married in the temple and her husband dies, she cannot be sealed to her second husband if she remarries. Because of this, a young temple-married widow has difficulty in the LDS dating scene because LDS men want a woman they can be sealed (temple married) to. If a man marries an already-temple-married widow, his children will eternally belong to his wife and her first husband. A woman can request that someone do a proxy temple wedding after she and her second husband die, but it's not allowed while she's living.

 

Polygamy and the temple ordinances (the secret/sacred initiation/endowment plus the secret/sacred sealing) were introduced in tandem. When I uncovered this bit of history, it helped explain to me why I never liked the temple ceremonies and why my wedding "vows" were unequal. (I gave myself to my husband, but he didn't give himself to me because polygamy is still built-in to the ceremony; he was/is free to receive other wives.)

 

If the LDS church repudiated the doctrine and practice of polygamy, I would be relieved and overjoyed. The church teaches that God commanded Joseph Smith to practice polygamy, but I do not believe it was ever commanded. No god I can fathom worshipping would command an abomination. I can see God allowing it among consenting adults, but not commanding it. LDS polygamy has a complicated and sad history. The modern legacy of the FLDS just confirms to me that it was not a godly practice.

 

I'll add some links in a minute for those of you who want to learn more.

 

ETA:

 

Online information about Mormonism or LDS beliefs and practices run the gamut from sensationalized and exaggerated anti-Mormon claims to whitewashed apologetics that attempt to justify every negative event or practice (or argue that they never happened). These links are in the middle and contain well-documented information.

 

Feminist Mormon Housewives Blog (run by active, believing LDS women who identify as feminist--they've done a lot of posts on women in LDS history)

 

This post links to other posts about polygamy, including the forgotten women of polygamy:

 

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/01/announcing-2014-a-year-of-polygamy/

 

Feminist Mormon Housewives Podcast (sister site by the same group)

 

The Year of Polygamy episodes (still in progress) detail the origin of the practice and often focus on a particular wife of a Joseph Smith:

 

http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/category/year-of-polygamy/

[DianeW88]

As far as LDS historical polygamy goes, there is also the issue of the time period.  The mid-1800s were not known as an exemplary time for women's rights.  Women who were traveling alone to the west were very vulnerable.  Having a husband offered a degree of protection unavailable to single women at the time.

 

Just as there are a thousand reasons that women enter a traditional marriage, there were a thousand reasons women entered a polygamous union.  Some did it for love, some did it for protection (and so that they could have a house and farm...it was harder for single women to own land on their own), some did it because of religious conviction, and some did it to escape abuse.

 

I volunteer at a living history museum here in Utah ( www.thisistheplace.org ), and we have many diaries of women in polygamous marriages.  I read one where a 16 year old girl joined the LDS church, and entered into a polygamous marriage to escape her abusive father.  By all accounts, she led a happy life.

 

My husband's family has been LDS since the beginning, and his great-great-grandfather was a polygamist.  Three of his wives were in name only.  They had been widowed and had young children.  They married him, and he provided for them financially.  They didn't even live in the same town he did.  He did not have children with any of them.

 

Personally, I couldn't do it.  I also couldn't enter into polyandry and have more than one husband.  Unless one of them was Bradley Cooper.  Or Colin Firth.  Okay, maybe I could. :D  But in polygamous Utah in the 1850s, nobody was marrying a super model.  I love this quote from Mark Twain after his time in Salt Lake City: "The man that marries one of them (Mormon women) has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure, and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence." :lol: :lol:   Luckily, we've "cutened" up some since then.  I recite this quote often around my MIL, because it offends her deeply.  And because he could have been talking about her grandmother. :leaving:

 

 

[Veritaserum]

As far as LDS historical polygamy goes, there is also the issue of the time period. The mid-1800s were not known as an exemplary time for women's rights. Women who were traveling alone to the west were very vulnerable. Having a husband offered a degree of protection unavailable to single women at the time.

 

Just as there are a thousand reasons that women enter a traditional marriage, there were a thousand reasons women entered a polygamous union. Some did it for love, some did it for protection (and so that they could have a house and farm...it was harder for single women to own land on their own), some did it because of religious conviction, and some did it to escape abuse.

 

I volunteer at a living history museum here in Utah ( www.thisistheplace.org ), and we have many diaries of women in polygamous marriages. I read one where a 16 year old girl joined the LDS church, and entered into a polygamous marriage to escape her abusive father. By all accounts, she led a happy life.

 

My husband's family has been LDS since the beginning, and his great-great-grandfather was a polygamist. Three of his wives were in name only. They had been widowed and had young children. They married him, and he provided for them financially. They didn't even live in the same town he did. He did not have children with any of them.

 

Personally, I couldn't do it. I also couldn't enter into polyandry and have more than one husband. Unless one of them was Bradley Cooper. Or Colin Firth. Okay, maybe I could. :D But in polygamous Utah in the 1850s, nobody was marrying a super model. I love this quote from Mark Twain after his time in Salt Lake City: "The man that marries one of them (Mormon women) has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure, and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence." :lol: :lol: Luckily, we've "cutened" up some since then. I recite this quote often around my MIL, because it offends her deeply. And because he could have been talking about her grandmother. :leaving:

I think a lot of positively-spun stories surrounding polygamy (just a formality to care for poor widows, for example) are a modern attempt to give a different reason for the practice than the obvious and explicitly-stated reason of "raising up a seed" (having children). While it's possible that some polygamist unions were in name only (no sex), the default standard was a marriage in every sense of the word.

 

There were more men in Utah than women according to census records:

 

http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#more

 

It is true that polygamy created better lives for a some women than they may have had otherwise, but its overall net effect was negative--especially when you factor in the continued legacy of FLDS-style polygamy.

[Veritaserum]

Another thing that added to the uneven numbers of men/women in the early LDS church was that a great many men had been murdered by the mobs at Han's Mill and the other areas where the Mormons were driven out, but their families were only driven away--leaving the early church with large numbers of widows and orphans to care for.

There were more men in Utah than women according to census records:

 

http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#more

 

What you said above is a belief I held for many years, but it isn't true (as I discovered when I delved into church history). I was quite disturbed by how polygamy was actually practiced and how widespread it was. :-/

[Veritaserum]

I don't watch the show, but why would anyone in the church care if someone only wants one wife? In churches that promote monogamy, people don't go around saying everyone has to have at least one spouse. If people want to be single, that's great. Don't the Sister Wives people have single adults in their groups? I'd have thought they'd be accepting of any number of wives. It's just wives, right? Or do the Sister Wives allow polyandry if that's what the family wants? I think I'm thinking too hard...

Having only one wife is seen as a lesser option according to LDS scripture (which the Brown's church also uses). Being single in LDS or LDS off-shoots is a sad state because you cannot reach the highest level of heaven (exaltation) without being married in the temple. When polygamy was introduced as doctrine in the LDS church, polygamy was taught as highest, most holy and pure form of marriage. The hierarchy of heaven (Celestial Kingdom) was:

 

1. (LDS) Temple-married polygamists

2. (LDS) Temple-married monogamists

3. Single people baptized into the LDS church

 

In current LDS teachings, the hierarchy is:

 

1. (LDS) Temple-married monogamists (or polygamists if a man is sealed to more than one woman due to divorce or death)

2. Single people baptized into the LDS church

 

The scripture that canonized polygamy as doctrine has never been removed, however.

 

A lot of LDS singles feel great pressure and anxiety to get married because being single is seen as a lesser state.

[Veritaserum]

Sorry for the serial posting. This topic has been an obsession of mine in the past couple of years.

[alef]

There were more men in Utah than women according to census records:

 

http://www.mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#more

 

What you said above is a belief I held for many years, but it isn't true (as I discovered when I delved into church history). I was quite disturbed by how polygamy was actually practiced and how widespread it was. :-/

Raw census numbers are misleading. There was indeed a surplus of active LDS women in Utah, just as there is now a surplus in areas with many converts. There was a huge disparity in the ratio of male to female non-LDS immigrants, but LDS women wanting to marry LDS men would not have considered the surplus of non LDS men as eligible partners.

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2010/10/12/go-west-young-man-and-sex-ratios/

[alef]

Sorry for the serial posting. This topic has been an obsession of mine in the past couple of years.

The question at hand is not the reasons for or justification of polygamy, but whether it's practice does or did lead to a surplus of unmarried men. Within the context of the 19th century LDS church it does not appear to have done so. We've simply been exploring the how's and whys.

[Veritaserum]

Raw census numbers are misleading. There was indeed a surplus of active LDS women in Utah, just as there is now a surplus in areas with many converts. There was a huge disparity in the ratio of male to female non-LDS immigrants, but LDS women wanting to marry LDS men would not have considered the surplus of non LDS men as eligible partners.

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2010/10/12/go-west-young-man-and-sex-ratios/

LDS Apostle Elder Widstoe addressed this directly in Evidences and Reconciliations:

 

"Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment. Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-day Saints.

 

"The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church. Families—father, mother, and children—have most commonly joined the Church. Of course, many single women have become converts, but also many single men."

 

http://www.cumorah.com/language/evidencesandreconciliations.html

[Mommyfaithe]

Diane, are any of these diaries available online? I am fascinated by primary sources of Women from other cultures. Seriously, can you get more culturally diverse from 1800's polygamist Mormons to late 1900 Brooklyn Jewish?? LOL!

[alef]

LDS Apostle Elder Widstoe addressed this directly in Evidences and Reconciliations:

 

"Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment. Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many non-members, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-day Saints.

 

"The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church. Families—father, mother, and children—have most commonly joined the Church. Of course, many single women have become converts, but also many single men."

 

http://www.cumorah.com/language/evidencesandreconciliations.html

Widstoe died over sixty years ago and did not have access to the large compilations of data available to researchers today. The best information I can find indicates that women did indeed outnumber men among immigrant converts in the 19th century.

 

i.e. http://books.google.com/books?id=mZyjXkA-MUYC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=male+female+ratio+mormon+converts+utah+scandinavia&source=bl&ots=Cc1fBorRcl&sig=zky4alR1FPfmsxH0jAIcEmDoCgw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rAIAU5T6I5TYoATr2IKgBA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=male%20female%20ratio%20mormon%20converts%20utah%20scandinavia&f=false

[DianeW88]

Diane, are any of these diaries available online? I am fascinated by primary sources of Women from other cultures. Seriously, can you get more culturally diverse from 1800's polygamist Mormons to late 1900 Brooklyn Jewish?? LOL!

 

Let me check on that.  They are primary sources in our collection at the museum, but I don't know if they have been digitalized.  I know that's the goal there for all the diaries we have.  My husband's great grandmother's journal is also something I would like to do that to as well.  She was the fifth wife, and the youngest.  Her diary is fascinating.  She gives a wonderful glance into the day to day life of pioneer Utah families.

 

We have a home from another polygamous family at the park that is very cleverly designed.  Two of the wives had separate living quarters at each end, with a common kitchen in the middle.  Eventually, the husband in this family built six separate, but identical, homes for each of his wives.

[Mommyfaithe]

I just have to say I am totally fascinated by this thread! Please let me know if those diaries are digitized. I would really love to read them. WHAT A TREASURE!

[alef]

I just have to say I am totally fascinated by this thread! Please let me know if those diaries are digitized. I would really love to read them. WHAT A TREASURE!

Not quite what you are looking for, but this page has a biography and excerpts from the diary of one 19th century Mormon woman.

 

Whoops, forgot the link

 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/supporting-saints-life-stories-nineteenth-century-mormons/9-diary-lucy-hannah-white-flake

[alef]

Another biography, but with less first hand writing https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/supporting-saints-life-stories-nineteenth-century-mormons/5-salt-earth-lady-martha-cragun

[alef]

Here's another. I find any first hand account fascinating. http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/SRich.html